Pages

Sunday, August 22, 2010

God is Superfluous

I'm just going to take a minute to explain methodological naturalism before I get to the point of this post. Methodological naturalism is the practical assumption that all science works from, when there is a gap in scientific knowledge it is assumed that there is a natural explanation for that phenomenon. If scientists sometimes assumed that a particular unknown was the result of a supernatural intervention it would effectively place a brick wall in the path of progress.

As you should know, science has effectively replaced religion in terms of understanding the natural world. We now know that Zeus doesn't throw lightening bolts, Neptune doesn't control the seas, our sun isn't a deity and Yahweh didn't create life on earth or fashion mankind out of the dirt. All of those things have completely natural explanations, those gods are superfluous. We don't have to stop there though, apologists have tried to find god in the realm of physics too, attempting to attribute the big bang to a supernatural origin. Unfortunately for them though the data strongly indicates to us that no such miracle occurred to kick-start our universe into being. Stephen Hawking wrote in 1988 "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." Apologists will then most likely posit the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing', and the simple answer is "Nothing is unstable" -Frank Wilczek. According to the principles of quantum mechanics, not only is 'nothing' unstable, but it seems nothing is also impossible. Thus, gods are superfluous in explaining the origin and existence of the universe too.

If we have relinquished the role of gods in explaining the origin and nature of the universe, and we can't detect any supernatural interactions with the physical world, for what purpose do we (as a species) still believe in gods? Is it to satisfy some deep-seated desire for a transcendent meaning to life? Or is it simply just wishful thinking?

22 comments:

This puts me in mind of a quotation from Voltaire - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". This is often taken out of context and there is much debate over Voltaire's actual intent - while he was certainly no fan of Christianity he was also no athiest, probably more pantheistic than anything. Again, I do not dispute that "natural" explanations account for pretty much everything (except for the supernatural, by definition!). We may "know" how lightning, storms, life etc are caused. What cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt is that everything simply "is" without any intervention whatsoever. Hawking's statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially if you're using it to decry the Divine Big Bang compromise which I have always felt comfortable with. Belief in God, or gods, remains viable as an alternative and equally valid explanation for how the Universe began, how the galaxy was formed, how life and evolution occur. That which cannot be proved cannot necessarily be disproved, and while I've seen little evidence which definitively proves the existence of God (or some deity), I've also seen no evidence which definitively disproves it. Many of us believe in God, or the gods, or even Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster, because it is preferable to, and makes more sense than, the alternative.

Quantum physics is very counter-intuitive, I remember hearing a joke about it a while ago that went something like this: "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics".I was taking my idea from Victor Stenger's book 'God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist'. In his book, he said that he wasn't trying to prove that there were no gods, his main premise was that if a god is given attributes that would have some effect on the natural world, then that god could be proved or disproved. Taking the example of Zeus, we know what actually causes lightening strikes, so we can say that the Greek pagan gods almost definitely do not exist. Likewise with the god of Fundamentalist Christians, who claim that their god created the universe 6,000 years ago, and that all life-forms were created in more-or-less their current state. This is empirically testable, and we can say as we did with Zeus, that the god of the fundamentalists almost certainly does not exist.

KJ, I'm really annoyed at you constantly trying to prove I don't exist. I've realised that I AM God, based on that when I pray, I'm talking to myself. Therefore, I would highly appreciate it if you stopped denying my existance now that I know of it.

I've always thought that those who ponder the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" and conclude from the inability to answer the question that there is a god, have limited intelligence. I know that sounds condescending, and I don't meant to imply that I'm smarter than them, but they do seem to be comfortable stopping all inquiry when they get to "I don't know" and filling the resultant gap in knowledge with god. Oh ye of small brains!

As mentioned above, the history of human thought has shown that as we progressed, questions that were once answered with "I don't know" (e.g. wherefore lighting?), and hence filled with god, have had, without exception, naturalistic answers. At no time, ever, has "god" actually been shown to be the correct answer. So, I go with the odds and figure that pattern will continue, and that those things we don't understand now will eventually be answered with naturalistic explanations. Those kinds of odds (100%) would make you rich at a casino, so why not? Life doesn't usually hand you those kinds of odds.

As for the question, Why is there something and not nothing, this question is viewed with the limited understanding of the word "nothing". I suspect theists who ask the question view the term like they do "space" envisioning a universe of pure space, with no stars or planets or other matter. What they don't accept is that "space" is actually something, not nothing. So that what they are asking is, why is there matter, and not space without matter?. That assumes that there was once a time when there was no matter, and it suddenly appeared, which is an assumption with a built-in creator, but is also without any evidence.

A better assumption would be that matter has always existed. If you assume that using Occam's Razor, there is no need for a creator or creation.

This is of course an unwinnable argument. Despite all the evidence that man landed on the moon (and did so several times), that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, that Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix and Princess Di are dead and Paul McCartney is alive, that Al Qaeda operatives were responsible for September 11, that Islam is at its heart a religion of peace and submission, and that UFOs have no unearthly origin, amongst many, many others, there are still people who hold steadfastly to views counter to those I have listed. For them, there is not enough evidence to disprove their beliefs, there will never be enough evidence to contradict their views, or they do not have the desire to be corrected. Likewise, with this whole "God" thing, many people still believe that the evidence, or lack or evidence, is not conclusive enough to make a definitive decision or are simply unwilling to consider an alternative. The latter view is unfortunate, in my opinion, because it is this stance which leads to extremism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism. I subscribe to the former view - I am still not convinced by the no-God argument. It may be that someday the evidence piles up convincingly enough for me to change my view, which is one of the reasons I read things such as this blog; I think it is arrogant to assume that we know everything already and that new evidence can not arise. Likewise, I would hope that if conclusive evidence to support the view that God exists was to appear, many of you would also accept it. The difficulty, of course, would lie in the definition of "conclusive evidence". You point to lightning, to space, to 4400BC, as being "proof" that God does not exist. I see this as being "proof" that humans are fallible and, being unable to understand the nature of God, have attempted to ascribe things to Him. As these things turn out to have natural causes, therefore, it is not proof that God does not exist, simply proof that some people had a rather limited viewpoint in His role due to a pre-modern mind set. Some "believers" point to "miracles" as being "proof", while "non-believers" will point to those same events and ascribe rational, logical, or scientific explanations to them. As I think I've said in a previous posting, we see what we want to see.

Ah yes. My point about the Lightening, 6000 year old earth etc. was that THOSE gods almost certainly don't exist. If someone claims that their god has specific attributes that have some impact on the natural world, and those attributes contradict what we've actually figured out to be fact, i.e. the earth isn't 6000 years old, lightening is caused by built up static electricity in the atmosphere and so on, then I would say that it is pretty conclusive that those particular gods do not exist. This argument however has nothing to say about a pantheistic view of god, or a panentheistic view. It has next to nothing to say about a deistic god who set the universe in motion 13.7 billion years ago and then let it be. It also has nothing to say about a theistic god who intentionally hides themself from being discovered by scientific understanding. This hidden view of god has in my opinion a seriously flawed theological implication if this god also created afterlives for the believers and non-believers.

Well you know, I think that if I created all of you guys, you should create something for me too. So here's your chance. Come up with a name for me. No, I'm not being lazy, why would you think that? I'm a perfect omniscient god.

"My point about the Lightening, 6000 year old earth etc. was that THOSE gods almost certainly don't exist. If someone claims that their god has specific attributes that have some impact on the natural world, and those attributes contradict what we've actually figured out to be fact, i.e. the earth isn't 6000 years old, lightening is caused by built up static electricity in the atmosphere and so on, then I would say that it is pretty conclusive that those particular gods do not exist."

No, it isn't conclusive. What IS conclusive is that the people who came up with those claims were wrong, or misled. The natural causes of lightning is NOT conclusive evidence against the existence of Zeus, just conclusive evidence against the idea that he was responsible for lightning, an attribute given him by his followers.

No, it's just THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the characteristics of their god. If their god exists, their incorrect conceptualisation of him/her/it does not in anyway imply that the god does not exist, just that they concieved him/her/it incorrectly.

I'm almost inclined to say that they're two sides of the same coin. I'm sure Ken Ham would tell you that a god that didn't create the universe 6,000 years ago isn't his god at all. In his mind, without a literal genesis, the entire rest of his religion falls to pieces. He says this in virtually every single talk that he gives. If the god of Christianity set the universe into motion 13.7 billion years ago, and let natural processes do the work from there, then Ken Ham doesn't worship the god of Christianity. His interpretation of that god is wrong, his god is not that god. Whether or not the deistic or pantheistic/panentheist god exists is not the issue at hand here. What I'm saying, is that there is no god that created the world 6,000 years ago etc.So I completely agree with you, that it is their conception that is wrong, but that doesn't prevent us from being able to say that a god with those characteristics does not exist.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm saying the same thing, because I changed gears in my head so to speak.

I want to put this question to those who do not believe that there is a God, and hope to get an answer: Why should a man-created, imaginary God have to be spaceless, timeless? To satisfy what basic needs of man was he one day compelled to create a God of his own with these particular attributes?